Hi. Welcome to Epiblast! The name is partly inspired by PZ Myers famous blog, Pharyngula partly by the fact that the epiblast, a simple tissue in a developing embryo (labelled 5), gives rise, eventually, to virtually everything inside our body. It's a metaphor for how some of our simple, fundamental ideas vastly affect the other aspects of our life. This blog covers my interests; usually science, medicine, atheism, religion. I might sneak in a bit of philosophy or magic if I feel like it. I warn you, the discussion gets uncomfortable and I come to conclusions which are unconventional, maybe contradictory to yours. Don't go crying to someone if you are offended.

In case you have not checked out part I its here. We considered the various Hindu viewpoints in the previous article but are still missing a few pieces of the puzzle. We still need to find out what evolution is, it's implications, both genuine and imagined, a little bit more on the Hindu perspective and what is to be done about the issue.

“What is evolution?”, you might ask. To put it simply, evolution is simply some kind of change in the traits which are passed on to the next generation. There are three known processes which drive evolution. Gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection. Natural selection is the one Darwin emphasised and is more commonly taught in schools. I risk grossly simplifying the process but I will try and summarise it in a paragraph. There are three driving forces behind natural selection; reproduction, variation and selection. Whenever an organism reproduces, DNA interactions result in changes in the genes which produce an offspring which is slightly different from the parent. Selection occurs when beneficial changes are preserved while harmful changes are eradicated. This happens on a spectrum and is also subjective to the environment. Detrimental changes may not kill off an individual but may put it at a disadvantage when it comes to reproduction. Eventually, with the accumulation of changes, a new species may arise. I like the Hindi phrase “tinka tinka ikattha karke” roughly translating to putting things together bit by bit, since it quite describes the process nicely.

The process may not be as simple as it seems but I have outlined the “engine” that drives evolution. Sexual selection also contributes to the evolution of a species. This is where traits which make an individual more sexually attractive are selected for even though it might cost the organism in other matters. For example, the peacock's large colourful tail makes it attractive, yet it is also harder for it to escape from predators. Evolution also favours efficiency, which is why some birds may evolve to become flightless. The energy and resources which go into developing wings may be diverted elsewhere. Some cave fish have non-functional eyes in the same manner. Thus evolution does not always an “upward ladder of progress” aiming for a certain goal. There is no controversy that evolution has happened. The controversies are in the technical details which some feel are too arcane to be taught at the school level[10] Controversy and debate are essential to the scientific method and is present in many fields. This does not mean we reject a concept it merely means we be specific about what we know and what we do not. The controversy between Intelligent Design / Creationism and Evolution is mostly in the courtroom and public schools. And maybe in scientific circles as they get more religious.

There are many brilliant books available which can help you explain concepts in a digestible fashion. Many theologians propose a “watchmaker” to account for the complexity and apparence of design in the world, as an analogy to a watch. Dawkins is famous for his “Blind Watchmaker”, where he explains how undirected natural forces build complexity and give the illusion of fine tuning. Ernst Mayer has written a detailed account in “What Evolution Is” which is also meant for a lay audience although is a little technical. Cameron Smith has looked at the issue in a different manner and discussed evolution by analysing the misinformation about it in “The top 10 Myths of Evolution”, A number of recent Hindu Revivalist Gurus like Swami Chinmayananda are often compared to the Ganges which brings down to the common man the sweet, cool waters (analogous to the subtle knowledge of Vedanta) of the Himalayan mountains. I am greatly tempted to apply that analogy to the likes of scientists like Richard Dawkins who make it easier for the common man to appreciate grand scientific ideas.

Evolution has certain implications which make it hard to swallow. It reduces the importance of humans relative to the rest of nature. We are simply a twig in the tree of life and a step higher than apes. As finely tuned animal bodies may be, there are undeniable inefficiencies as a result of the developmental pathway[11]. People with handicaps don't exactly have a “gift”[12]. It is simply a consequence of the way nature works. It also blurs the apparent distinction between human and non-human. We exist on a spectrum with all other living beings and not as a quantum. Evolution being a process as a consequence of the way reproduction and selection happens is “without a distant goal” and almost eliminates any sense of purpose, at least biologically, other than to survive and replicate. This does challenge conventional morality[13]. At least that is what the creationists feel. However, moral dilemmas, as opposed to morally uncontroversial situations, are rarely straightforward so moral injunctions are always going to be challenged regardless of evolutionary theory.

So what exactly is the reason behind some people's intolerance of evolution? One of the main objections to this is that it totally kills the image of god as a watchmaker (or potter, if you want to be Vedantic) handcrafting individuals and releasing them into the world. For some people, it means that there is no morality![14] I wonder how they arrive at that. To some people, the reasoning goes like this. My scripture is the word of God. Anything that contradicts it must be a lie fabricated by the devil[15]. The punchline in a comic actually said “If you believe in evolution, you’ll end up in hell”. Since the scientific world view is currently dominant, all the evils of modern society are assumed to be because of it. What is the hallmark of Modern Science? Darwinian Evolution! You might have said Quantum Physics but its a little challenge to accuse concepts about tiny particles of immorality. Another reason why evolution is controversial is because it contradicts common sense (which some people believe is extinct). According to our conventional knowledge, design is a product of intelligence. Hence when we see the apparency of design in the natural world, it is difficult to intuitively grasp that it could have arisen purely by natural processes. Sure Quantum physics challenges common sense but even scientists are shocked by it.

We have seen the myriad of hindu viewpoints, the concepts of evolution, the nature of the controversy. You're asking me to get to the point and tell you what to you. But here's the kicker. It's not my business to tell you what to do but since you asked so sincerely, here it goes.

1. Figure out how evolution might fit into your worldview.2. Figure out how religion fits3. Figure out how your friends fit in ...3789. Try and see where there is friction between the previous 3788 aspects of your life.3790. Sort it out in your head first3791. Help to keep religion out of the science class (support the scientific side)

I realize that hindus as a whole do not really have a problem with evolution and a number feel that they are wholly consistent. However concepts in biological evolution may challenge certain more technical aspects of various philosophies. Mostly, I think that the philosophical worldview (i.e be it advaita, dvaita, saiva etc) are not perfectly compatible with evolution, although they might largely not contradict each other because they may have slightly different aims. However, I feel that as Hindus we are pretty comfortable with contradicting worldviews and we often try to synthesize them as unstable as that might be. I feel that there is no need to be syncretistic with a scientific worldview as it largely covers a different ground from religion. To conclude, I think we Hindus should let science go its own way as long as it does not compromise on its own values of truth and testing.